You caught me in a technicality, Jed. The distinction between retirement and tenure, especially in Fleischmann's case, is specious given what is at issue:
Whether it is independence that is the foundation of scientific revolutions, or the "guidance" of our esteemed institutions. On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On the other hand . . . Fleischmann worked in government-funded >>> institutions all of his life >>> >> >> And not until he retired was he allowed to pursue the breakthrough. >> > > That is incorrect. He was working on cold fusion when he was still at the > university -- you can see his affiliation in the papers. They never > objected because he was tenured. Not to mention an FRS. Some professors, > such as Bockris, met with opposition despite tenure, but most did not. > Mizuno met with opposition and had to spend his own money, but no one tried > to stop him or any other Japanese professor. > > If it were not for the tenure system, cold fusion would never have been > replicated. Most of the replications were done by tenured professors using > university labs. Pons put some of his own money into the experiment, but > the equipment and lab space was at U. Utah, so most of it was public money. > > You could not possibly get tenure if you talked about cold fusion today. > You would never be hired in the first place. That is why there are no > professors under 60 doing cold fusion. The field will die out soon if this > does not change. > > - Jed > >
